Author
Topic: IPCC and Politics (Read 6309 times)

FrameSHIFT: "You are not correct about that, but since this is not Coffee House, I won't comment further."

FrameShift and I have had a good time in the thread about foundationless frames and our posts have gone somewhat political. I'm inviting him to comment further here in the Coffee House.

Before we get too far in the conversation I will admit that I worked on weather radar and other weather observation and forecasting equipment for 11 years. I also worked with weahter forecasting professionals for that time so I've got a bunch of insight into climate and climate change. In short the IPCC is a political group with an agenda and all of their conclusions are based on CO2. Why? Weather/climate is the sum of many forces, too many to accurately predict very far out. No single facet of the issue can be singled out as the only or limiting factor. There are just too many forces at work.

The leaked emails actualy prove that I am correct about my conclusions. The IPCC is not about science. Last year we had a colder than normal year. Were the CO2 levels reduced to cause this colder year? No. The fact is that the sun is the main cause of climate change and that man has little to do with it.. The IPPC is junk science.

The fact is that the sun is the main cause of climate change and that man has little to do with it.

For some baffling reason the people who have already made up their mind on Global Warming and CO2 seem to completely disregard the Sun! How can a person of science disregard the main energy driver of the whole system; the Sun?

The fossil history of the planet clearly shows the climate has changed hundreds if not thousands of time. Change happens; from being buried under a mile of ice to gators living at the Arctic Circle. Who are the CO2 people going to blame for all the past changes? If CO2 didn’t create past changes, then just maybe other factors (like the Sun, Planetary albedo) are primary drivers of climate change. Thermodynamics makes it pretty clear the main driver in a system is the heat source.

I’m not rejecting the idea of climate change. It has always occurred and always will.

beyond, thanks for your kind invitation to join you in the Coffee House. :-D

I'll just point out a few things:

The emails did not belong to the IPCC but rather to the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.The emails were not leaked as you suggest but rather were stolen.The journal Nature, which is probably the most trusted bastion of Science, reviewed the emails and concluded that there was no indication of conspiracy to fake data or mislead the public on global warming. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html

In fact, one of the most troublesome aspects of the current climate models is that the changes are happening so fast. Climate would not normally change this much in thousands of years.... but it's happening in our lifetimes. Not good.

Nobody is ignoring the sun. CO2 does not heat the atmosphere all by itself. :-D It traps energy from the sun and raises the equilibrium temperature at which re-radiation of infrared energy matches the energy from sunlight falling on the earth.

While they may differ on the smaller details (like how much sea level will rise) almost all reputable climatologists accept that anthropogenic CO2 and other greenhouse gases are a major contributor to the measured increase in average surface temperature.

You just don't get many such obvious lines of evidence. Theorists stated in the 1970s that continued rises in CO2 would increase the temperature of the Earth. CO2 has risen, the temperature has risen. The mechanism of the relationship between CO2 and heat retention is simple and can be easily demonstrated in the laboratory. The concrete results can be seen in the melting of ice caps and glaciers. And ice cores have shown a consistent relationship between historic CO2 levels and temperature. That pretty much sews it up.

The politics became involved when the people making lots of money selling fossil fuels realized that their flow of cash was going to be impacted by restrictions on using their product. They hired their own "scientists" who had a clear mission: cast doubt on the real science that pointed to a need for restricting burning fossil fuels. There is no reason to think that the very good climatologists who have predicted and confirmed global warming had any political motives at all.

Actually the same crowd was predicting a solar winter caused by all of mans pollution in the early 1970s. The key here is that these folks are preoccupied with the notion that mankind can control or influence the weather/climate. They keep pointing at human caused CO2, giving us the term carbon footprint, as the problem. Like I stated before no single aspect of weather or climate can be singled out as the cause of weather or climate change. There are too many forces at work.

The IPCC and the CRU at East Anglia are basically the same crowd. I don't see any distinctive differences between the two. Many of the peers of the CRU are also on the IPCC. These folks have consistently and systematically ignored data that disproves their "theory". They point at the decline of many glaciers but ignore the advance of others. They have ignored the surface temps on Mars, which are tracking the changes here on earth. How is our CO2 causing climate change on Mars?

Yes, there is a money trail here. A former vice president who has written books about it, invented the internet and created a company that will sell you carbon offsets so you can feel better about your carbon footprint. Oh, an he travels every where in his personal Gulf Stream and lives in the most energy wasteful house in the US. What a hypocrite!

would anyone take medical advice from their auto mechanic? or investment advice from their server at McDonalds? so why do so many people form their opinions about climate change based on info from politicians, big business, and the media? the overwhelming majority of climate scientists say that humans are causing significant climate change. they are the experts who have devoted their careers and lives to studying the issue. would lying make them rich or famous? considering that none, pro or con, are tracked by Forbes or making the cover of People magazine, I would say no! I have faith in the scientific data and the experts who analyze it. I have no more faith in politicians making good decisions about environmental stewardship than I do in my mechanic diagnosing a lump in my armpit. And you know what, what do we have to lose? if we develop alternate technologies and stop cranking out the greenhouse gases and it turns out that the climate scientists are wrong, what have we lost? absolutely nothing, in fact we will have new technologies and could be world leaders in it if we act quickly (we are going to run out of fossil fuels eventually). but if they are right and we did not listen, then we are screwed. the major problem here and what will be our undoing is that it takes ~30 years for GH gases produced to result in climate change. so if we wait until the changes are so obvious that no one can deny them anymore, then we are 30yrs past screwed. or so I hear from scientists...

The politics became involved when the people making lots of money selling fossil fuels realized that their flow of cash was going to be impacted by restrictions on using their product. They hired their own "scientists" who had a clear mission: cast doubt on the real science that pointed to a need for restricting burning fossil fuels. There is no reason to think that the very good climatologists who have predicted and confirmed global warming had any political motives at all.

why would scientists intentionally practice bad science? why would they intentionally suppress dissenting views? of course it is political. these are people who have lived in the academic bubble and are convinced that man is a mistake of evolution, and boil on the butt of the earth. just as they predicted that we would be frozen by now, they predict that we will be under water tomorrow. after all, if man exists, we are doomed! + there is money in it, isn't there?

marx was an economist yet his "economic theory" was shot through with this green crap. why? partly because of his view of man, but also because this is another way to control people. regulation and intimidation by the government for our own good.

Quote

I have faith in the scientific data and the experts who analyze it.

why? because they have such a good track record? why are you more impressed with the global warming "scientists" than the thousands of dissenters who have pointed out the long, long, record of climate change with no impact by man? why are you willing to reduce your lifestyle and allow the government to invest in failing industry based on the words of people who have been shown to have diddled the numbers?

i have no doubt that there is climate change. if there were not, i'd be living on an ice flow now. there is evidence that Antarctica was once clear of ice. a little global warm up and we get a new continent! perhaps that is the design. more people need more land.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

>why would scientists intentionally practice bad science? why would they intentionally suppress dissenting views? of course it is political. + there is money in it, isn't there?

Of course there is money, trillions. Every academic institution doing "Climate Change" research receives alot of grant money...money that would evaporate with the first hint at the notion that climate change was either non existent or not directly related to the activities of mankind. And that's not to mention the gazillions to be made by the select few (Al Gore is one of them)who started the carbon offsets trading industry. Why do you think he pushed it so hard? Because he was a believer? Not a chance, just look at HIS carbon footprint. Smoke and mirrors.

I too belive the climate is changing, as mentioned, it always has and always will. But the so called concensus is nothing of the sort. There are twice as many scientists who do not deny change is happening, but are not convinced that the cause is clear cut at all. And speaking of the IPCC, of the "experts" cited from the Kyoto accords, most are not climate scientist at all. Only a small number have any sort of background related to the subject.

Do I believe we should clean up the atmosphere? Absolutly, but not at the expense of the economies of most of the developed countries of the world. And by the way, even the IPCC scientists don't believe any efforts we put forth to stop the warming will do any good in the foreseeable future. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, just don't break the bank in the process. My $.02

If the climate is warming up, why isn't the ocean rising. One of the ways the claim that the temperature is rising is by looking at thermometers that were placed around the world. One problem, the ones that were placed in the middle of Russia (one of the coldest areas) are no longer being maintained due to their economy. Sure looks like the world is warming up when you remove the coldest areas from the data. A while back they used to have the locations listed until someone started checking out these sites and found a lot of them were recording temperatures caused by various heat sources next to the equipment (exhaust from AC units, middle of a tarmac with no shade).Jim

Logged

"If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed. If you do read the newspaper you are misinformed."--Mark Twain

Let's also look at where all those thermometers are located. Almost all official weather stations are at the local airport. The official temperature sensor is normally located just off the center of a runway. I used to maintain these temperature sets and was taught that my presence, within 25' of the sensor, could skew the official temperature. Meanwhile a drumbeat of aircraft, landing and taking off, are screaming by. I can feel the heat coming off their jet engines as they go by. What's wrong with this picture? We're worried about my 98.6 degrees skewing the reading but don't worry about those huge heaters blowing by every few minutes. Most of the data is skewed to the warm side simply because of where it is recorded. No matter how educated these CRU fellows can be, this is all theory and the data is inaccurate. They play with it, as revealed in their emails, to support their notions. The goal? A worldwide carbon tax paid to the UN. That's the money trail.

Oh my goodness, where to begin. No, scientists do not believe that humans are a mistake of evolution (there are no mistakes or right/wrong in evolution). Yes, scientists do sometimes change their ideas based on new evidence (George Washington was killed by doctors feeding mercury into his blood because, at that time, they thought it was helpful…so do we write off all doctors forever?); willingness to change opinions based on logic is characteristic of intelligent thinking and lacking from groups who cling to beliefs for reasons other than seeking truth. Yes, of course climate change has existed independent of man since there was a climate on earth, no one denies that it is a natural phenomenon; what is an ‘inconvenient truth’ is that mankind is causing significant and sudden climate change primarily through (inarguable fact here) production of copious greenhouse gases since the industrial revolution. No one is suggesting that we ‘reduce our lifestyles’, just that we achieve the same comfort with less harmful technologies. yes, number diddling was suggested for a couple scientists who were discussing what statistical analysis was best, but (a) you don’t need any statistics to understand what is happening to the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and average temperature of the earth (those are raw data, no statistical tweaking), and (b) any scientist who did make up numbers would be fired and thereafter unemployable…why is that worth the risk? Yes there is money to study climate change, but only to verify whether it is real, our impact, its trajectory, and what we can do to alter it; it’s not like scientists who find positive results get more money (that’s not the way science and grant-writing works, sorry; read about the ‘scientific method’ and the null hypothesis). Yes, there is some limited money to be made in the carbon offset industry, but (a) it is absolutely insignificant compared to what is made in the fossil fuel industry and (b) there are no negative impacts of planting more trees. Yes, Al Gore is a hypocrite, but he has done a lot to get people to think about the issue, and that is a good thing. No, scientists are not anywhere near evenly split about the role of humankind in producing greenhouse gases and altering climate; like evolution, there is clear and overwhelming majority who agree on the subject, it is not even close. No, it is not true that most of the IPCC experts have no background related to climate change (LOL!!!). Yes, of course, the ocean is rising; why don’t you go visit Bangladesh or the Maldives and see for yourself. No, the majority of the IPCC’s thermometers are not on tarmacs. etc. ad nauseum.

Look, I’m not asking you to believe me. I already told you not to take climate advice from politicians, fuel industry, media, mechanics…or people in online forums like this. Don’t take my word. Go read the science for yourself and form your own opinion based on facts from the true experts on the subject. And while you’re at it, contemplate what’s at stake with the 4 different scenarios for whether we are causing harmful changes in the climate and what we do about it.

1. We do nothing to change our behavior and the climate scientists are wrong. Outcome = neutral. Nobody had to make any changes, and luckily not doing so didn’t bite us in the @ss. This is the option that carries the least perceived inconvenience and is therefore the path that most uniformed people choose to hope for. I can understand that; I wish it were true too! But it almost surely isn’t. And by the way, we will still run out of fossil fuels eventually and need to develop alternative energy options sooner or later; we are just delaying the inevitable.

2. We do change our behavior and the climate scientists are wrong. Outcome = neutral to positive. All we will have done is fast-track the inevitable transition from fossil fuels to alternative energy, and if we do it right, nobody has to make any personal sacrifices and no economies have to suffer. On the contrary, whatever country develops those alternative technologies first stands to make a lot of money and will probably be a super power for a long long time. I would like the USA to be a part of that, not left behind in the next dark ages, wouldn’t you?

3. We do change our behavior and the climate scientists are right. Outcome = positive. If we act quickly enough and minimize the pending impacts, we will have averted major catastrophe. Nothing bad about this.

4. We do nothing to change our behavior and the climate scientists were right. Outcome = negative. This would be a tragedy, perhaps the end of humanity, likely the end of civilization as we know it, certainly great hardship millions or billions of people. Nothing good can come of this.

There you go, 4 choices. 3 of them are neutral or positive in the end, 1 is catastrophic. Which 1 do you think we should plan for? The world’s most highly trained critical thinkers on the subject say human-induced climate change is real and about to bring the roof down on us. So what should the world’s most intelligent species do?

Yes, Al Gore is a hypocrite, but he has done a lot to get people to think about the issue, and that is a good thing

because we all know that intentions are more important than facts.

Quote

We do change our behavior and the climate scientists are wrong. Outcome = neutral to positive.

not so. every single green legislation puts a tremendous burden on business and industry. look at what the new EPA regs are doing to coal. more regs=more expense=more cost to consumer and business=less employment=damaged economy.....

your choices are based on faulty assumptions, but that's ok. many choices are, and we still have to make them.

i'm pretty sure that no one has a problem with cleaner air and cleaner water. both are much cleaner now than when i was a kid...and yes, much of that is due to regulations. the other part is due to lack of industry.

what i have a problem with is agenda trumping all else. in this case, and without facts, international bodies seek to tax and regulate....and reward as they see fit. Kyoto went down the drain because it was economically un-doable. thank god we had the sense to stay out of that. i don't know anyone, including the president, who doesn't admit that cap and trade will have a serious negative impact on the economy. CAFE standards add to the cost of cars and yet those extra miles are either phantom or make a negligible impact....especially when you calculate the impact of things like ethanol and disposal of batteries on both the environment and the economy.

there is a reason that the left immediately jumps on any man made disaster. every green agenda needs to be evaluated with the understanding of the leftist point of view. not every green thing is bad, but every green thing should be suspect.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

We do change out ways and the cost kills 1/2 or more of our businesses and the other half cut production because nobody can afford to buy their product. Then the scientists say "Look how well we cut the emissions"Bull, they cut the people's standard of life to get their huge grants.

IE. All vehicles since 1995 have emission sensors that are required to get the vehicle through inspection. The sensors go bad. They are made in china and sell for about a dollar. Go to have one replaced and the cost is nearly 200 dollars. No problem with the emissions, just the sensor. Total ripoff in the name of saving the planet.Multiply that a few billion times for different laws and you reduce the standard of living enough to offset the gas emissions. HOORAY!!

Logged

"Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me . . . Anything can happen, child. Anything can be"

Sounds like we are all in agreement then - :-D - better to be safe than sorry, but we are not going to accept any greenwashing in the process. Don't give me a more efficient light bulb that costs more and also has mercury in it and has to be disposed of as hazardous waste. Don't give me more efficient cars that cost more and come with additional toxic batteries. Don't increase the cost of coal energy, just give me solar energy cheaper than coal. Let's develop new sustainable affordable industries that bring production and profit back to the US. Let's all accept nothing less!cheers

Let's develop new sustainable affordable industries that bring production and profit back to the US.

i would slightly modify this: let's let the market develop new sustainable, affordable, industries that bing production and profit back to the US. ;)

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

zippelk: I realize you're being sincere in what you say, but...scientists do skew findings to further their own goals. The emails from "climate gate" are a pretty good indication that it happens. And they sometimes get fired when they get caught, if their employer is honest. And if you are truly interested, there are citations available that list the credentials of the IPCC scientists. Of the 64 who signed the Kyoto Accords, fewer than one third were in a related field. Be it meteorology, oceanography, geology or the like. I wrote a research paper on the topic a few years back and my conclusion was that the biggest loser in the whole affair was the scientific process. Mostly due to the financial and political influence to report what was expedient while ignoring what contradicted the conventional wisdom.

Sorry, this is just totally and completely wrong. The IPCC doesn't deploy thermometers. Neither does the CRU. They merely have judged data that was collected from local governments and agencies. Those thermometers are at airports, the traditional place for a temperature of record. Check your facts before you stand up for frauds.

not just airports. someone, don't remember who, did a story on these thermometers and where they were located. some were next to buildings, parking lots, sun, shade, partial shade, etc. there was no conspiracy, but there was certainly lack of knowledge and attention to detail. how many need to be carelessly placed to skew the results? don't know. in the story, they only looked at US placement.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

“Chicken little has become an entrepreneur” - Not exactly, just a realist. I sincerely believe in everything I write here, I am not yanking anyone’s chain. Personally, I would pay out the nose for earth-friendly options, but I know that the vast vast majority of people would not. So, if the people in charge who are supposed to be looking out for our well-being want the safe outcome (prepare for what the climate experts tell us is coming), then they need options that achieve that outcome (transition from fossil to sustainable fuels) without giving the masses any sense of lost income, options, or pleasure. No easy task, but isn’t that why we pay them the big bucks?

“scientists do skew findings to further their own goals” - I think that is so exceptionally rare as to be a non-issue. What might be an issue, and where the whole climate-gate thing came up, was statistical analyses of findings. And really, that’s what statistics is, different ways of analyzing trends, and something that can be abused or legitimately 2 analysts can reach different conclusions from the same dataset, depending on their tests and confidence limits. But in this case, (a) you don’t need any statistical manipulation of the raw data to see that CO2 and temperature are rising, those are raw unadulterated data, and (b) to suggest that the vast majority of climate scientists (since the vast majority agrees with anthropogenic climate change) is creating false data is absurd, it’s just not possible.

“IPCC scientists. Of the 64 who signed the Kyoto Accords, fewer than one third were in a related field” We might be talking apples and oranges here. I am talking about the scientists who collect the data that is collated by the IPCC. From their website: “The IPCC is a scientific body. It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. …Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis.” These people are most certainly climate scientists publishing in professional academic journals that mandate review by external peers who are also climate scientists. When you speak of 64 that signed the Kyoto Protocol, are you referring to government representatives from the participating countries? I don’t think anyone doubts that the scientists contributed the data that helped craft the document, but it is governments who signed on and agreed to change policies accordingly. Let me know if I am missing your point there…

“The IPCC doesn't deploy thermometers. Neither does the CRU. They merely have judged data that was collected from local governments and agencies. Those thermometers are at airports, the traditional place for a temperature of record.” - So your hypothesis is that, over the 150+ years of temperature data the IPCC has, the obvious recent increase is the mere result of more thermometers being placed at airports in the 100 or so years since the airplanes (and presumably at some point thereafter, airports) were invented, and that scientists the world over are not clever enough to figure that out? I’m gonna say that seems unlikely, no statistics necessary.